I hope that our readers have read the response of NewsGuard’s Gordon Crovitz to my recent criticism of the company’s rating system for news sites. He makes important points, including the fact that the company has given high ratings to conservative sites and low ratings to some liberal sites. I have mutual friends of both Gordon and his co-founder Steve Brill, who have always sworn by their integrity and motivations. I do not question Gordon’s account of past ratings for sites.
However, I also welcome the opportunity to further this discussion over media rating systems and to explain why I remain unconvinced by his defense. It is a long overdue debate on the use and potential misuse of such systems.
As a threshold matter, I want to note that I am aware of conservative sites reviewed by NewsGuard that have been given favorable ratings. That is a valid distinction from past rating sites like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI).
Moreover, while I noted that NewsGuard has been accused of bias by conservatives and is being investigated in Congress, my primary objections are to rating systems as a concept for media sites. Before addressing that opposition, I should note that I still have concerns over bias from the email that was sent me, particularly just after a column criticizing the company.
Now to the main concern.
A Shield or a Sword?
In his response to me, Gordon argues that “I would have thought, including based on your recent book, that you’d especially welcome an accountable market alternative to censorship.”
I disagree with Gordon’s suggested dichotomy. As I argue in the column, rating systems are arguably the most effective means to silence opposing voices or sites. These systems are used to target revenue sources and have been weaponized by the current anti-free speech movement. They are used more as a sword than a shield by those who want to marginalize or demonetize a site.
We have seen such campaigns targeting various sites and individuals, led by political groups opposed to their viewpoints, including figures such as Joe Rogan. This includes Elon Musk and X after the reduction of censorship systems and the release of the “Twitter Files.” After being targeted by these campaigns for years, rating systems have been denounced by Musk as part of an “online censorship racket.”
Moreover, the use of private entities like NewsGuard is precisely what makes the current movement so insidious and dangerous. Whether by design or by default, rating systems are effective components of what I have described as a system of “censorship by surrogate.”
What NewsGuard is attempting is potentially far more impactful for the funding and viability of websites. Rather than an alternative, it can be an avenue for censorship.
I have also written about my concerns with the Global Alliance for Responsible Media and its use of rating systems to deter advertisers for targeted sites. The group states that it “unites marketers, media agencies, media platforms, industry associations, and advertising technology solutions providers to safeguard the potential of digital media by reducing the availability and monetization of harmful content online.”
As the column discusses, NewsGuard seeks to position itself as a type of Standard & Poor’s rating system for media. The role would give the company unprecedented influence over the journalistic and political speech in America. The rating can be used to discourage advertisers and revenue sources for targeted sites. Just as S&P scores can kill a business, a media rating could kill a blog or website.
That is an enormous amount of power to be wielded by any organization, let alone a for-profit enterprise started by two self-appointed monitors of media. That is not meant to disparage Gordon and Steve, but to acknowledge that this is not just a hugely profitable but a hugely powerful enterprise.
It is also not a criticism of the founding principles. We have seen many organizations that began as faithful to principles of neutrality only to see those principles corrupted with time. Indeed, as we have previously discussed, the very principles of objectivity and neutrality are now rejected in many journalism schools.
The Criteria
While NewsGuard insists that its criteria is completely objective and neutral, that does not appear to be the case. The site’s standards include key determinations on whether some sites run statements that NewsGuard considers “clearly and significantly false or egregiously misleading.” (That appears part of the most heavily weighted criteria for credibility at 22 points).
The staff will determine if it believes that a site shows a tendency to “egregiously distort or misrepresent information.”
The staff decides if information is false and, if it is considered false by NewsGuard, whether the site “identifies errors and publishes clarifications and corrections, transparently acknowledges errors, and does not regularly leave significant false content uncorrected.” Thus, if you disagree with the claims of falsity or view the statement as opinion, the failure to correct the statement will result in additional penalties.
The site will also determine if it finds the sources used by a site to be “credible” and whether “they … egregiously distort or misrepresent information to make an argument or report on a subject.”
If the site decides that there are errors, it will lower ratings if the site does not “transparently acknowledges errors, and does not regularly leave significant false content uncorrected.”
The company pledges to combat “misinformation” and “false narratives.”
We have seen mainstream media use these very terms to engage in highly biased coverages, including labeling true stories or viewpoints “disinformation.”
Given these terms and the history of their use in the media, NewsGuards assurances boil down to “trust us we’re NewsGuard.” GDI made the same assurances.
This is not to say that some of these criteria cannot be helpful for sites. However, the overall rating of media sites is different from Standard & Poor’s. Financial ratings are based on hard figures of assets, earnings, and liabilities. “Liquidity” is far more concrete and objective than “credibility.” What NewsGuard does is fraught with subjectivity regardless of the motivations or intentions of individual raters.
The Res Ipsa Review
The inquiry sent to this blog reflects those concerns. The timing of the inquiry was itself chilling. I had just criticized NewsGuard roughly a week earlier. It is not known if this played any role in the sudden notice of a review of Res Ipsa.
One inquiry particularly stood out for me. The reviewer informed me:
“I cannot find any information on the site that would signal to readers that the site’s content reflects a conservative or libertarian perspective, as is evident in your articles. Why is this perspective not disclosed to give readers a sense of the site’s point of view?”
The effort of NewsGuard to label sites can have an impact on its ratings on credibility and transparency. Yet, sites may disagree with the conclusions of NewsGuard on their view of the content. What may seem conservative to a NewsGuard reviewer may be less clearly ideological to the host or blog.
Moreover, despite noting that it asked MSNBC to state its liberal bias, it is not clear if the company has suggested such a notice from many other sites from NPR to the New Republic. For example, is Above the Law supposed to warn readers that it takes a liberal perspective and regularly attacks conservatives? What about other academic blogs like Balkinization?
The point is not to say that they should be required to label their own views (though some sites choose to do so) but to ask whether all sites are asked to do so. If not, when is this demand made for sites? For some reviewers, a liberal perspective may simply seem like stating the obvious or unassailable truth.
Labeling
In fairness to NewsGuard, we all often engage in labeling as part of our discussions — both labeling ourselves and others. For example, I often acknowledge that I hold many libertarian views. However, I continue to write columns that run across the ideological spectrum and I continue to be attacked from both the right and the left for those columns.
Identifying yourself as a libertarian does not convey much information for readers. Many readers have erroneous views of libertarians as a monolithic group. (The public high school teacher of one of my kids told the class that libertarians were just conservatives who did not want to call themselves Republicans). In actuality, it is a group that runs from liberal to conservative figures who maximize individual rights. Labeling your site as libertarian is about as helpful as saying that it is utilitarian.
The suggestion in the email is that readers should be informed that anything they read is coming from a libertarian or conservative on the site. Yet, most law professor blogs are very liberal, but do not make the same type of warning.
We often discuss these labels in judging the diversity of faculties. Yet, that is based largely on surveys of professors self-identifying or the political registration of academics. It is admittedly a blunt tool, but there is little debate that faculties around the country are overwhelmingly liberal. Indeed, even sites like Above the Law have strived to defend “predominantly liberal faculties” as just reflecting the fact that most conservatives are simply wrong on the law.
There is always an overgeneralization in the use of such labels, but we try to take that into consideration in discussing the overall lack of diversity of viewpoints on campuses today.
Conclusion
Rating media sites is vastly different. You are often relying on the views of the reviewers that may be challenged by the site. Postings that challenge popular narratives are often denounced as false or disinformation by critics.
I am particularly concerned over the reported government contracts given to NewsGuard by the Biden Administration as well as agreements with teacher unions to help filter or rate sites. The Twitter Files have shown an extensive system of funding and coordination between agencies and these companies. The funding of such private rating or targeting operations is precisely what I have warned about in congressional testimony as a type of “censorship by surrogate.” The government has been attempting to achieve forms of censorship indirectly that it is barred from achieving directly under the First Amendment.
Consider those bloggers and scientists who were censored and denounced for voicing support for the lab theory on Covid 19 and other subjects from the efficacy of masks to the need to shutdown schools. They spent years having mainstream media figures denouncing them for refusing to admit that they were spreading disinformation or conforming to general views on these issues.
The Washington Post declared this a “debunked” coronavirus “conspiracy theory.” The New York Times’ Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was calling any mention of the lab theory “racist.”
Political and legal commentary are rife with contested opinion over the facts and their implications. Having a company sit in judgment on what is fact and what is opinion is a troubling role, particularly when the rating is used to influence advertisers and financial supporters.
Once again, there are many people on the other side of this debate who have good-faith reasons for wanting a standardized set of criteria for news sources and commentary sites. I simply believe that this is a degree of influence that is dangerously concentrated in a small number of groups like NewsGuard.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
N.B.: After this response ran, NewsGuard wrote me that Above The Law actually was marked down for failing to clearly delineate between news and opinion. It further said that the New Republic acknowledges its liberal take, so there is no issue on labeling. What is not clear is whether every site, including academic blogs, are asked to label themselves and who makes that decision on what label should apply.
I try to stay informed without watching/reading the endless rehashes provided by both sides of the media in order to keep our attention on them. Your blog is high on my list for the best way to do that.
Oh, give me a break. Ratings systems online have been used, if not all the way to outright censorship, as tools for intentional bias since they were conceived of, Weak. Sauce, comrades at NewsGuard. I have no patience remaining for this squeaking of Marxist nonsense into cultures intentionally founded to be 100% antithetical to what amount to Marxist ideals.
In keeping: have you all seen Biden’s proposition for ‘preserving democracy’ (code for preserving dem rule, THEIR democracy that does not actually exist in our Republic) re the courts? Seriously, Mao et. al. would blush at the insanity of the modern left and current administration.
It’s all absurd and it will all be on steroids with Kamala, who is – hey! An actual, generational Marxist.
And OT – have you seen the *actual children* that will be running Britain? They country is about to self-destruct, and it’ll be a great object lesson for what America will look like if the likes of the squad ever held majority sway (and not quite yet, but someday, on the left, they *will*). Leftist millennial/gen z administrations have worked so well for Portland and Seattle. 🙄🙄🙄
My main objection to ratings sites, especially for news-related information, is that, no matter how much I or anyone else detests the idea, someone’s going to do it. And someone in authority is going to utilize such ratings for their own idea of censorship. Whether this happens in the form of government-required censoring of content, or private businesses making their own decisions of what should be censored, in my opinion, the result will be poor.
Without transparency concerning how and why NewsGuard selects posts or articles for review, as well as information about the relative quantity of materials assessed by outlet, NewsGuard’s ratings lack all credibility and are best branded GIGO—garbage in, garbage out.
Molly Hemingway has a great piece on this in The Federalist today.
https://thefederalist.com/2024/07/29/targeting-law-professor-turley-again-proves-newsguard-is-a-powerful-scam/
OLLY,
That was a good read.
Thank you for posting that.
“. . . as is evident in your articles. Why is this perspective not disclosed . . .”
Seriously?! NewsGuard wrote that? You didn’t alter their wording or the order of their words? Two obviously contradictory points — side by side?
Bye-bye NewsGuard.
His articles ARE evident. They ARE more conservative and libertarian than they used to be. This blog was once about pure legal analysis. Now it’s column after column espousing libertarian and conservative gripes about the left. NewsGuard is not wrong about that. It’s even shown in the number of commenters leaning that way.
“His articles ARE evident.”
Per usual, you completely missed the point — intentionally or otherwise.
No, it’s not contradictory. NewsGuard says Turley doesn’t disclose its perspective by saying they are libertarian/conservative as a disclaimer. However, his columns clearly point to libertarian and conservative views. What NewsGuard is pointing out is the lack of transparency and obvious bias despite Turley claiming to be objective or not biased against the left.
George said: No, it’s not contradictory.
You don’t have any more credibility or persuasiveness popping up to defend NewsGuard, those magnificent paragons of virtue, as you do pumping your supposedly constitutional justification for racism.
“ts criteria is…..”
Turley needs an editor to help him distinguish plurals from singulars.
I am particularly concerned over the reported government contracts given to NewsGuard…
The job of figuring out who to trust begins and ends with the end-user. This quote from JT is a good example.
I am… JT has earned my trust regarding the issue of free speech.
concerned over the reported government contracts… as much as I trust JT’s concern, my job is to verify if those contracts (funding) actually exist. If they do, that is a red flag warning for me as well. Even if Newsguard began with purely neutral motives, it would be just the vehicle the government would exploit once end-users became addicted (dependent) to it.
JT likely made that comment to demagogue NewsGuard as a biased source. Because nothing says biased as a hint of “government involvement” Turley is passively smearing NewsGuard because he doesn’t like the fact that he is being scrutinized and critiqued and compared to the rest of the media world. The irony about this is that it’s all part of free speech and free market philosophy.
George diverted from his usual racism to post this: JT likely made that comment to demagogue NewsGuard as a biased source.
George puts almost as much effort into demagoguing Professor Turley as he does into his efforts to demagogue Lincoln for defeating the slave states and people who won’t conform with his claims that Europeans get to define ‘natural born citizen’ for Americans.
How quaint – and how similar to Soviet Democrats channeling what they actually do onto others that they want to smear.
“The job of figuring out who to trust begins and ends with the end-user. “
Olly, I agree. If Steve Brill wasn’t honest as a reporter at the Washington Post, why should I trust the profit-making entity that he is a part of?
I do not need NewsGuard or any other private organization taking grants and other funding using our tax dollars from the government to tell me or rate a given site.
They are nothing more than self-anointed wannabe gate keepers no one asked for.
Ignore them.
Upstate, they are NOT talking government grants. Turley claims it is reported that they are. That’s his way of smearing the private organization to delegitimize it in front of his readers. You are already jumping to the assumption that they do have government contracts without even bothering to confirm it. You are just taking it as gospel whatever turley says. That’s why NewsGuard is doing the ratings. They compare everyone on neutral criteria that everyone has access to.
Turley seems to be bothered by it. Instead of ignoring it he chose to attack their scrutiny by making a false claim about it. Only after he was called out for making that false claim did Turley admit he knew they ranked some conservative sites higher than liberal ones. They exposed his habit of omitting pertinent information from his columns and his lazy approach to research.
George lied with conviction: You are already jumping to the assumption that they do have government contracts without even bothering to confirm it.
But you lied without confirming your lie. Only had to look back to 2020 and Wuhan Flu, where Bribery Biden and Fauci were labeling scientists who disagreed with them as spreaders of misinformation:
“NewsGuard will receive funding to conduct a pilot and will work with the State Department’s Global Engagement Center to scope and develop a test in support of the DoD’s Cyber National Mission Force.”
That didn’t take much longer than a web search. You’re the one who’s exposed George, not professor Turley.
You’re exposed as a lazy serial liar and prevaricator – and a sophomoric demagogue as well.
Didn’t lie. There is a fundament difference between “government funded” and a one time Grant. The federalist tried to characterize NewsGuard as government funded solely to discredit the organization. NewsGuard pushed back hard and fully explained the distinction. One that Turley clearly wouldn’t do because leaving out details about the issue makes it easier for readers to reach an assumption without ever bothering to check for themselves. As it is often the case with Turley’s readers who wallow in ignorance and gullibility.
You (and Mespo below) miss the important point. While it is true that you, Mespo, I and many other consumers of information will not care about the ratings, many advertisers to sites absolutely will care.
“ As I argue in the column, rating systems are arguably the most effective means to silence opposing voices or sites. These systems are used to target revenue sources and have been weaponized by the current anti-free speech movement. They are used more as a sword than a shield by those who want to marginalize or demonetize a site.”
No, they don’t silence opposing voices. Turley is wrong with that characterization. Rating systems allow people to decide for themselves by using the information they provide. They don’t force people to choose. By providing information based on transparent criteria and applying it to all provides readers or users of the rating system with information that they can use to make their own decision on whether to fund, advertise, donate, or follow an organization. This is done everywhere. YouTube has thousands of channels dedicated ranking things like products, cars, food, restaurants, hotels, etc. Many based on user experiences and reviews. That. Is. Free. Speech.
Turley is bothered by the idea that his site can be ranked and compared to others who may be better than him or have better quality content which is a wholly free market principle. He doesn’t like GDI because it’s government funded and he claims free market systems would be better, NewsGuard is a private company which can be challenged by another if it is created. You can rank books by their popularity or sales volume. Turley’s book is nowhere near the top ten or on NY, times best-seller list. Maybe that’s why he is constantly promoting his book in nearly every column. It may not be doing very well…according current rankings.
“Turley is bothered by . . .”
Thanks for the daily ad hominem and smear of JT.
Sam,
Just scroll past.
His comments are not worth your time reading.
It appears he responded to one of my comments, but, of course, I did not bother to read it.
Upstate, you read everyone of them. Don’t lie to yourself.
That’s not an ad hominem. It’s criticism. He’s fair game in the world of free speech.
Complaining that he is being rated by a private organization and claims it’s a form of censorship seems petty.
Turkey is right and you are wrong. With ratings systems like News Guard, if not the intent than the result is to force people, media outlets and blogs to self-censor so as not to get a bad rating and lose advertisers (and money) as a result. This is no different than the old Soviet Union limiting professional advancement to party members in good standing. The big question is who is News Guard or any other rating service to decide what is the truth? A short list of recent “truths” that weren’t include the Russian Collusion hoax, the “fine people” hoax, the COVID vaccines stop infection and transmission hoax, if you take the vax you won’t get COVID hoax, the 6-foot separation nonsense, the masks stop transmission hoax and the school closure b.s. All of those proved to be false yet how many people were censored, silenced, fired or ostracized for challenging these once “established” facts? That is why rating services like New Guard are antithetical to free speech and horrible ideas in general.
“ He makes important points, including the fact that the company has given high ratings to conservative sites and low ratings to some liberal sites.”
Points that Turley did not disclose in his first column attacking NewsGuard. Because he WAS portraying NewsGuard as biased. NewsGuard pointed out correctly that the assertion was false.
Turley has a problem with NewsGuard being a private organization which makes it clear it is basing its criteria on free market principles. It judges every site according to the same criteria. He opposes GDI because it is government funded. Turley is against ratings systems because it gives people information to make their own decisions about media sites. We rank everything and media is not immune. Fox News often portrays itself as the most watched most trusted network, but how do we know that is true if it is not scrutinized by an apolitical outfit like NewsGuard? Turley’s gripe seems to be more about being scrutinized and exposed to certain truths about his blog. Which is more libertarian and conservative leaning and that is based on the bias and tone of his columns.
Turley did make a false claim in his initial column attacking NewsGuard and after being called out by NewsGuard for it he did not dispute the fact that NewsGuard does indeed rank some conservative sites higher than liberal sites. He just didn’t like being called out on it.
What NewsGuard is doing is free speech. Free speech is not an immunity from being scrutinized, criticized, mocked, or, being rated. Turley is free to disagree, but he’s not free from being scrutinized by NewsGuard as they scrutinize everyone else.
They say, “I cannot find any information on the site that would signal to readers that the site’s content reflects a conservative or libertarian perspective…..”
Maybe it’s because you try to adhere to the Constitution, like most Libertarians/conservatives and unlike liberals.
Bravo Professor Turley! Well said.
Frankly I believe that your Democrat/liberal tendencies shine through very clearly in the majority of your columns and the only reason I say that is to underline once again how subjective this supposedly unbiased rating system is.
I also liked your “leper bell” reference, I believe it was on X. Are ideas – of whatever ilk – really so dangerous that we must warn people about potential exposure? What would our founders have said to that?
Your concern and skepticism is warranted and real. I was just recently “Permanently” suspended from Twitter (X) for simply replying to an article about the dangers of DEI in Public Safety. My comment was simply the use of DEI in Public Safety will result in people DIE. Within minutes I was “permanently” suspended. I immediately filed an appeal, I received an email reply in less than 30 seconds advising the permanent suspension was upheld. I attempted to appeal again and my account was listed as not locked or suspended so no appeal could be filed. However, it remains permanently suspended with no ability to send any request for review. The censorship is real and it can be carried out by one employee with no recourse. I have moved to Truth Social.
I have been permanently banned from LinkedIn for writing the TRUTH about Covid. My very large page on Facebook has been deleted. Somehow FB had a problem with “Stupid Stuff Biden Says” previously named “Stupid Shit Obama Says.”
“While NewsGuard insists that its criteria is completely objective and neutral, that does not appear to be the case.” EXACTLY!
Ironically, News Gaurd, doesn’t label themselves as “Leftist” which they most certainly are! As for “liberals” there are very few classical liberal’s around anymore. The vast majority are actually “Leftist” and worse, Far Leftist otherwise known as “Progressive’s!”
And Leftist is actually a cover for being Marxist, Socialist, & Communist! In short, they are Anti-God, A moral, degenerates!
Dear Professor-I don’t think there is any surprise that they fired a shot across your bow. That speaks more volumes than any words in any letter. We do not need their services and no adult with a brain needs them either.
Typical elitist claptrap. “We need to guide the great unwashed masses to the real light”.
Contracts with the Biden administration?? Thats an indictment level offense right there.
The only response should be a full broadside “figuratively speaking”.
“We have seen many organizations that began as faithful to principles of neutrality only to see those principles corrupted with time.”
I give you Google as prime example!
Used to be: “do no evil” to; “be evil all the time”
Turley succumbed to it as well. His content changed from purely boring legal analysis to politically biased opinion. Turley discovered later on that you get more attention by enabling conspiracy theories and peddling Fox News narratives.
I found NewsGuard’s response and their whole approach offensive. The entire endeavor rests on this assumption that readers are incapable of discerning the truth for themselves & their children and need some government funded entity to read a publication for us, declare its authenticity and then rate it in our behalf. How dare they?! I have news for you, Steven Brill & Gordon Crovitz: you are not uniquely qualified to decide what I am going to read or not read. Your whole business model reeks of complete arrogance.
To NewsGuard and every group like it:
MYOB!
It’s odd that one would take offense at being judged by another based on criteria they apply to everyone else. Christians do it every day. Politicians do it. News organizations, and internet podcasts engage in it. Fox News relies on it.
What they provide is information that YOU can choose to use or ignore. They are not forcing anyone to make their decisions solely on their rankings. If you find it offensive, don’t use it. It’s a pretty simple concept that even Turley fails to grasp.
I have no problem with constructive and transparent criticism. What I take issue with is when content is censored because some Government contracted organization has intimidated a company to pull ads based on the arbitrary whims of its employees who themselves have their own biases, thus starving a media sight of revenue.
Show all content within the bounds of 1A protections.
Apparently any organization that wants to make itself the “Standard and Poor” of the malinformation racket was not around during the 2007/2008 financial meltdown, brought to you lock, stock and barrel by – drumroll please – Standard and Poor
– Dennis Byron
Ratings “services” only have the power we give them. I never once considered a Nielsen rating in choosing entertainment. Don’t care what this group says about this or that. Were I JT, I wouldn’t take criticism from folks I wouldn’t take advice from. And some 25-year-old with an IPad and a degree from Call Tech isn’t my guru of sage life advice.
“The staff decides if information is false …”
Does NewsGuard disclose the leanings (Liberal, conservative, libertarian, anarchist, Anitfa) of the staff who determines if the information is false or misleading?